"The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover)."

????

Excuse my ignorance, but what computer simulations is he speaking of and how would he propose to overturn them? Also, what research was he doing that's so special he can't do it on DI money, if it was going to change the world? I'd expect the DI to cough up a cool million at least if a few years on MATLAB were enough to assure their victory.

Further: Why am I so stupid that I continually think it's worth subjecting this crap to logical scrutiny?

--------------"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

[86]Q. Have you done any scientific research on the subject of evolution?

[87]A. Yes. Some of my current research is on testing evolutionary hypotheses making use of evolving computer organisms.

[88]Q. Can you describe in general terms what that research is?

[89]A. Sure. The idea is to make use of a system that essentially is an evolutionary system whereby the Darwinian mechanism is implemented in the computer and using that to form experiments to test evolutionary hypotheses. Essentially one is able to watch evolution happen and in replicable controlled experiments test particular evolutionary hypotheses.

[90]Q. Has this research been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

[91]A. Yes, in Nature.

[92]Q. Matt, could you pull up Exhibit P-330? Is this the first page of that article in Nature?

[93]A. Yes, that's right.

[94]Q. And Ken Miller plugged Nature repeatedly in his testimony, but I'll give you the chance as well. Is Nature one of the more prestigious scientific journals?

[95]A. Nature, together with Science and PNAS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science are really considered the top three journals within science.

[96]Q. And obviously peer reviewed?

[97]A. Peer reviewed journals, that's right.

[98]Q. You didn't write this article by yourself?

[99]A. This was a collaborative project. My collaborators in this case were two of my colleagues at Michigan State, Richard Lenski, who is an evolutionary biologist. He's most known for his work on experimental evolution using bacteria. He's had lines of bacteria evolving for the last fifteen years that allows one to do experiments to test evolutionary hypotheses in that kind of system.

He got very excited about this new system that allows one to test evolutionary hypotheses in a way where things are even faster. Charles Ofria is another colleague at Michigan State. He's in the department of computer science, and he together with Christoph Adami, the last name there, are the two originators of the platform known at Evita. Adami is a theoretical physicist. He's most known currently for his work solving a problem that Steven Hawkings was trying to work on regarding black holes, but he works in this area as well. He at the time was at Tech.

[100]Q. At where?

[101]A. At Tech Research Institute out in California.

[102]Q. I'm going to ask you the same question here that I have asked you in our private meetings, which is these are computer organisms. They're not biological organisms. What can they possibly show about biological evolution?

[103]A. They show us how the Darwinian mechanism works. The key thing about them is that it's a model where you have the laws that Darwin discovered, the mechanism of random variation that's heritable, that then can be naturally selected, can be seen, manipulated, experimented with in just the same way, it works in just the same way that it works in the biological case. These organisms, computer viruses if you will, evolve. And so one can set up experiments to watch them evolve and test hypotheses about how the Darwinian mechanism works.

[104]Q. Now, these organisms, computer organisms, they didn't arise by themselves, correct? There was a programmer involved?

[105]A. Yes. That would have been Charles Ofria particularly, writing we called the Ancestor Program. The Ancestor is simply a self-replicator, an organism that has instructions to allow it to replicate itself, but otherwise is just a series of blank instructions. That's the basic part that, was hand coded.

[106]Q. So with that, you know, fact of a human designer, a programmer, how can this teach us anything about evolution in the natural world?

[107]A. Our investigations are not about the origin of life. Like Darwin we're not really interested in that particular question. We're interested in as Darwin said the origin of species, the origin of complexity, the origin of adaptations, and what we're able to do in this system is examine essentially what Darwin examined. We're not investigating how life began itself. We're investigating how once that happens, things evolve, evolve complex traits.

[108]Q. So just to make sure I understand, this research wouldn't be valuable in any way to coming up with a natural explanation for how the first biological life arose?

[109]A. No. It's not at all aimed at that.

[110]Q. Does the designer, the programmer, play any role in the development of these computer organisms, like their evolution after that?

[111]A. The wonderful thing about this is that we can essentially sit back and watch evolution happen. We'll set up an environment, set up a system, put in place the Ancestor, put in place the original organism, and then within the experimental set-up, depending on what one wants to investigate you'll set it up differently, but essentially at that point we're not going to go in and hand code anything. We're not going to manipulate the code. What happens at the end, if they've evolve some new functional trait, that something that happens by virtue of the Darwinian mechanism. They randomly evolve, they randomly vary, that variation is inherited, and the natural selection then does its work.

[112]Q. What advantages does this computer model have over doing research on the subject of evolution with biological organisms?

[113]A. It has the advantage of speed primarily, and precision. It allows us to do what you really can do with natural organisms. Lenski's work with E. coli lets one do experimental evolution so one can test hypotheses in that way. It's taken fifteen years, E. coli are pretty fast replicators, but even so, four generations or so a day still is a long time, and your graduate students would never get out and get jobs if you had to wait for that whole process to go through, and what this does is let one watch it happen much more quickly, and then set up very controlled circumstances so that you can really do replications. A controlled experiment is now possible in a way that allows very precise comparison of groups and then statistically significant results.

[114]MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, at this time I'd like to move qualify Dr. Pennock as an expert in the philosophy of science, in the history of science, in intelligent design, the subject of intelligent design, and in his research on the evolution of computer generated organisms.

Quote

[193]Q. Are irreducible complexity and specified complexity associated with particular individuals in the intelligent design movement?

[194]A. Irreducible complexity is most associated with Michael Behe. Specified complexity is most associated with William Dembski. These are interrelated concepts though. Specified complexity is the more general form. Dembski directly though says that irreducible complexity is a type of, a case of specified complexity.

[195]Q. Does your work on computer organisms address these arguments of irreducible complexity and specified complexity?

[196]A. Yes, it does.

[197]Q. Can you just describe for us briefly how it does that?

[198]A. Sure. The claims that are made with regard to these two concepts are as follows. Systems that exhibit or that purportedly exhibit irreducible complexity or specified complexity, actually at this point let me just focus on irreducible complexity, because since it's an example of specified complexity, any conclusion that we can get with regard to irreducible complexity would also deal with specified complexity. So we can just focus on that.

So the claim is any system, Behe's example is a mouse trap, so it doesn't have to be a specifically biological system, just a very general argument, any system that is irreducibly complex, thus to say has interacting parts that are well matched to introduce a function, such that if you remove any of those parts, it breaks, stops functioning, doesn't produce that basic function, is an irreducibly complex system, and such systems the claim is couldn't have been evolved through a Darwinian mechanism.

What our system shows is that's just wrong. We can observe digital organisms evolving by the Darwinian mechanism, starting with an organism that cannot produce some effect, cannot fulfill a function, doesn't have this possibility, and later on evolve to the point where it can, some complex trait that we can then examine. The nice thing about this system is it lets one look at it very precisely, we can look inside and see does it fulfill the definition?

In fact, it does. We can test to see, remove the parts, does it break? In fact, it does. And we can say here at the end we have an irreducibly complex system, a little organism this can produce this complex function. But the nice thing about the system is that we can look back and see in fact it did evolve. We can watch it happen. So it's a direct refutation of that challenge to evolution.

[199]Q. Is that point addressed, put forward in the Nature paper?

[200]A. It's not. The Nature paper itself is meant just to be a test of a general evolutionary hypothesis, examining how it is that complex features arise. Darwin had specific things to say about that. What we were doing was simply looking into that, testing it in a way. It just turns out that it also applies to this case.

Cross-examination:

Quote

[205]Q. I want to ask you a few questions about your work in the computer science area and Evita. You testified that in your opinion that Evita is an artificial life system designed to test evolutionary hypotheses, correct?

[206]A. That's correct.

[207]Q. And that's the scope of your testimony here today. You said the same thing, correct?

[208]A. That's correct.

[209]Q. And you said today and I believe in your opinion that it's designed to instantiate Darwin's law, correct?

[210]A. That's correct. By instantiate, just so that I this kind of explain this sort of philosophical term, the difference here is between a simulation of something and an actual instance of it. That's to say a realization of it. In the Evita system we're not simulating evolution. Evolution is actually happening. It's the very mechanisms of evolution itself as Darwin discovered them. The organisms actually do self replicate. They do randomly vary the code changes. The mutations happen at random. There is competition and actual natural selection. So these are not being simulated. Those processes are actually happening. So that's the sense in which it's an instance of evolution, not just a simulation.

[211]Q. And to make sure I understand, it seems you're saying that the instantiation makes it a more perfect model of Darwinian law of natural selection, is that correct?

[212]A. What I'm saying is it's an actual example of it, that what we have in the system our organisms, Evitians, have the very properties that the Darwinian mechanism discusses. So it's not a simulation of replication. They are actually self replicating. It's not a simulation of a random mutation. That's what's going on with the code. It's not a simulation of natural selection. They do compete and are naturally selected, without intervention, without design.

[213]Q. And Mr. Rothschild asked you and I believe you testified that the program doesn't address the question of origins, but rather the process of Darwin's law, it's working out in the computer program organisms, correct?

[214]A. It doesn't deal with the origins of life. It deals with the evolution of complexity of adaptations. So origins can sometimes be used in both ways. So what's relevant here is it's not about the origin of life. It's about the origin of complex traits.

[215]Q. And I believe you said that the overall purpose of the project is to test how evolution actually works, is that correct?

[216]A. That's right. What we're able to do in the system is put forward an evolutionary hypothesis and then set up a controlled experiment and let the system evolve with replications, as many are as needed, and in some cases you might have fifty different populations replicating in a controlled situation, fifty in an experimental situation, so that you can then watch what happens in each case and observe evolution, the Darwinian process, do its stuff.

[217]Q. Now, if someone looked at a computer program, I think you have said that it was written by a particular individual called the, what did you call it, the genesis program or the --

[218]A. No, the Ancestor.

[219]Q. Ancestor program, forgive me. They would look at that and immediately know that was done by a computer programmer, correct?

[220]A. Not necessarily at all. In fact, one can look at these things and not know which things were coded by a programmer and which things were evolved. We know because we put them in there this was the one that we coded, but if one were to just look at them, you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell at all.

[221]Q. So is it your testimony that if someone happened to cross that computer program, they wouldn't know that someone had designed it?

[222]A. That's right. You would not be able to pick out the ones that were evolved from those that Charles Ofria hand coded as the Ancestor. As I said, what the Ancestor does is simply replicate it. It's a very basic program. Most of it is just blank code, and as the organisms evolve it can actually turn out that they lose the ability to replicate. Some mutations are harmful.

Many are. Most are, or neutral. It might make no difference. Some mutations can actually make them better replicators, and if it turns out that random mutations replicates better than another organism, that means that in the competition, in the digital environment, those will be naturally selected. So what you'll have over time is the evolution of for example faster replicators. That is they figure out a way to replicate faster than the original programmer programmed in.

Or it could turn out that they'll be worse, and those will then lose out in the competition. So what you see is the evolutionary process, random mutations to the code, being naturally selected for and generation after generation organisms evolving, in this case better replication ability. Or, and this is the other thing that's characteristic about Evita, it can evolve the ability to perform complex logical operations, and in this case again it's not something that was programmed in at all.

The original Ancestor could do none of that, but what one sees at the end are organisms that have evolved these complex abilities. The code has changed. It's acquired an ability that it did not have before. And that's what we're able to see, something we know that was designed at the beginning but couldn't do any of this stuff to something at the end that has evolved so it's quite complex.

The set of instructions has to be executed in a specific order to produce a particular function. That's something we can look at and say how did it do it, and often they're very clever, they evolve things where the programmer would think why, I would never have thought even to do it that way. And that's what allows this to be a nice model for examining how evolution can produce complex functional adaptations.

[223]Q. Sure.

[224]A. If you have it, and the other thing about it is -- sorry, I get excited about this. We can trace, we can keep track of the full evolutionary history. So we have a complete fossil record if you will. So after we've see that it's evolved something we can look back and look, it's a mutation by random mutation of how that evolved.

[225]Q. Sure, and forgive me if my question was imprecise. I didn't want to cut you off, but my question is a little different than one you've answered at least as I see it, not technical, which is this. I'm not asking about the difference between the organisms you're looking at. I'm saying if someone came across that computer program, the Ancestor program, wouldn't they believe it was designed?

[226]A. And my answer is that you really can't say that. You might believe it and you'd be wrong. You can't tell the difference between the one that was encoded and one that was evolved later on.

[227]Q. So it's your testimony that someone could believe the computer program was not designed?

[228]A. You're asking a psychological question about what someone could believe, is that right? In that case they could believe all sorts of things, but the question has to do with can you look at them and tell this was one that was designed, and the answer there is no, not necessarily.

[229]Q. Let's use your definition and let's constrict causality to the natural world and I'll ask you the question again. If someone like myself wandered down to Michigan State University and came across your computer system generating this pattern that you have described in great detail which is designed to substantiate Darwinian mechanism, is it your testimony or do you have an opinion concerning whether someone like me would think that was designed or not?

[230]A. Someone might think it was. You might look at it and you might say wow, that looks pretty complicated, how could that have happened. You might think this is so amazingly functional and interrelated, it's irreducibly complex, it had to have been designed by someone, and you'd be wrong.

[231]Q. So I would be wrong if I inferred that that computer program has been designed by a computer programmer?

[232]A. That's right. You'd be wrong about that. The ones that emerged at the end of the evolutionary process have specific code that lets them do specific adaptive functions, and that was not programmed in.

[233]Q. Would I be wrong if I inferred that the computer program had been created by a supernatural force?

[234]A. If you were to conclude this just as a theological position or as a scientific position?

[235]Q. If I were to conclude it in any way.

[236]A. So again, and this is a nice example to sort of show the difference between thinking about this as a scientist under methodological naturalism versus the intelligent design notion of opening our minds to the possibility, what I have said here is that the organisms at the end weren't designed. We didn't have a hand in doing that. They evolved. Someone who says well, we have to consider the possibility of supernatural interventions might say well, you know, God was in there or some supernatural designer was in there changing the bits inside the computer.

Well, you know, we don't know if that's true, and no scientist can ever know if that's true. That's not a testable proposition. So in that sense we can never rule that out. That's part of what it means to be a methodological naturalist. So we're neutral with regard to that. Our conclusion that there was no design is one based upon methodological naturalism, namely we're assuming that this is working through ordinary laws, that there aren't any interventions that breaking laws. We know that we didn't do it, and that's what we can say as scientists. If God or some supernatural being is in there fiddling with the gates, the logic gates such that there really was design, we don't have any way of testing that.

I have no idea how they would propose to "overturn" the demonstrable claims Pennock made in KvD with respect to Avida. I think they must be delusional on that point. I guess we'll see whether the EIL improves any on the already-poor track record that the virtual lab has established.

Excuse my ignorance, but what computer simulations is he speaking of and how would he propose to overturn them?

They've mentioned Tom Schneider's ev and Devolab's Avida. They overturn these programs by showing that they contain "active information", which, translated into non-obfuscatory language, means that the evolutionary algorithms involved are more effective than blind search. Needless to say, scientists everywhere are shocked! shocked! by that revelation.

I've asked Sal twice what exactly the EIL is accomplishing with its framework, and he ignored the question both times. Dembski claims that the EIL will put Devolab out of business, but I doubt we'll ever see him betting a bottle of Coke, much less single malt scotch, on that claim.

Quote

Also, what research was he doing that's so special he can't do it on DI money, if it was going to change the world?

I know your question is rhetorical, but I'll spell out the obvious answer: Baylor's kibosh on the EIL funding (a whopping $30k for two years) makes for a great persecution story and a handy excuse for the EIL producing nothing of value.

I was posting on the expelled site, but my posts were considered "pathetic", so I figured that this was the place to come.

Let’s take a closer look at those who wrote in to the Shout Out section on the expelled website claiming to have been “expelled”.

Of the 43 postings (only 42 now, cos’s entry seems to have mysteriously vanished), there are 6 claiming to have been fired, or forced to resign. I think this is relevant, and will be discussed later.

Sixteen posts claim to have been denied something: Tenure (3), tuition/scholarship (2), membership at church (1), participating at a website (5) (note- 80% of those were banned from ID sites), a potential future as an academician (1), a potential future as a football player (1), publication (2) (note- both were later published), and that a library refused a subscription to an unnamed journal (1).

Eleven posts claim to have been not expelled, but mocked. These are some of my favorites. Sorry, but anyone who considers Kent Hovind a scientist deserves all the mocking one can muster.

Nine additional posts were from creationists who didn’t claim to have been fired, or denied something, but they just seem pi$$ed off that their creationist claims weren’t taken seriously enough for them, i.e. “my creation club challenged the high school science teachers to a debate and they refused.” And “everytime I talk about Creation Science my teacher makes me feel stupid”. Is this mocking? OK, it probably is.

One post was just a letter cautioning ID proponents to remain anonymous..

Here are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly entertain civil arguments and debate regarding them-

A great part of the problem we face here is - why does “Expelled” and the ID movement in general, while trying to make the case that “’Big Science’ has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom”, not distanced itself from the dumb, old, completely disproved ideas of literal biblical creation and a 6,000 year old earth? Does anyone think that Michael Behe will abandon all his research because Ken Ham says “You can’t prove anything, YOU WEREN’T THERE!”?

Simply put, that move would alienate way too much of the populist base the ID movement is trying to rouse into social and political action. Take for example, Don McLeroy, new chairman of the Texas State Board of Education. As is evidenced by this sermon that he delivered at his church about ID:

This man is clearly an inerrant bible literalist, who believes in a 6,000 year old earth, which was created in 6 - 24 hour days, and covered by a global flood, from which Noah, his kin and the animals on the ark were the only survivors, and from whom all animal life on this planet came to exist. Now, under it’s “big tent” philosophy, the ID movement is OK with having young earth creationists as supporters, and young earth creationists, for some reason that I don’t quite understand, are OK with the ID movement as well.

But will Don McLeroy be satisfied with Texas schools teaching science classes containing information that Michael Behe has publicly stated he adheres to – namely common descent and a 4.5 billion year old earth? I don’t think so.

I don’t think creationists like McLeroy will be happy until the book of Genesis is substituted for the textbooks currently in use in Texas science classrooms.

So, I don’t think that it’s possible for the ID movement to ever achieve the slightest legitimacy within the scientific or academic communities until it at least separates the science wheat from the creationist chaff, which, I am sure it is loathe to do because, as stated previously, it would alienate too many of its major financial contributors, and its most powerful and politically influential supporters.

Now, let’s revisit the “expelled”. The first thing that concerns me is that we are only hearing one side of the story, and in cases like these there are always at least two sides to be heard, although I feel confident in saying, based on pre-release info and interviews that when Expelled is released, the movie will also be decidedly one-sided.

But, six individuals have posted that they either lost their jobs, or were forced to resign because of intolerance. Of those, one was a musician for a church, who was asked to leave because he taught a song whose lyrics questioned some church doctrine. If true, this is certainly intolerant of the church, but clearly, it has been upheld, that some organizations, even when using Federal funds, may discriminate in their hiring decisions.

Another was a Sunday school teacher who claims he was forced to resign because he didn’t want to keep to the church’s “vague” lesson plan on creation. If true, then, again, intolerant of the church, but certainly within their purview to have taught what they desired to have taught.

The remaining four are Jerald, Ross, Jerry and Christopher.

Jerry claims he was fired because of his anti- Darwinist views at a Spring Arbor University, which is an evangelical Protestant school. He indicates that he was fired due to his doubts about Darwinism even though the President and Vice President of the school were openly creationist, although he does state in his post that he also experienced antagonism from “dogmatic Darwinists” at the previous University he taught at, Bowing Green State University in Ohio. Jerry taught psychology, not any field remotely related to evolution. It seems to me that something is missing from this story. How pi$$ed off could he have gotten the faculty of the biology department for them to have them call for his ouster? How does it serve “big science” to have him expelled?

Christopher was a teaching assistant who claims he was “let go for what he held to be true”. He also states “I also invited others (creationists) to come and speak with me about the issue during my Teaching Assistant time. … not a smart thing to do”. What is the moral here? Whatever you believe, when you are paid to do a job, if you don’t do the job, your employment is, as it should be, in jeopardy!

Jerald and Ross both claim to have been fired for their non-Darwinian views. If their stories are true and complete, it would seem they were treated unfairly.

Where does this leave us? Is there discrimination in our society? Undoubtedly,yes. Is there some discrimination amongst scientists and academicians? Again, yes. Are some scientists (and bloggers) hard-headed and unwilling to accept new concepts and ideas? Sure. But is this the major conspiracy Expelled claims it to be? Decidedly, NO. Just as the Discovery Institute’s constant assertion that evolution is a theory in crisis, so too the claim that ID proponents are being silenced is vastly overblown.

What can the ID movement do to gain credibility? First, state clearly what ID is, and what it is not. If the scientific heavy hitters of ID (Behe, Dembski, Denton, etc) all feel comfortable with an old earth, (I’m not aware of any of them who don’t) and some of them endorse elements of common descent, and speciation, let that be brought forth.

Second, come up with some valid research that isn’t 20 years outdated (Denton), or completely invalidated (irreducible complexity), and submit it for unbiased peer review.

But, as I contend that the ID movement is first and foremost a political and Dominionist Christian protagonist, the real science will always take a distant back seat.

Jerry claims he was fired because of his anti- Darwinist views at a Spring Arbor University, which is an evangelical Protestant school. He indicates that he was fired due to his doubts about Darwinism even though the President and Vice President of the school were openly creationist, although he does state in his post that he also experienced antagonism from “dogmatic Darwinists” at the previous University he taught at, Bowing Green State University in Ohio. Jerry taught psychology, not any field remotely related to evolution. It seems to me that something is missing from this story. How pi$$ed off could he have gotten the faculty of the biology department for them to have them call for his ouster? How does it serve “big science” to have him expelled?

I think that is sufficiently specific to actually make an identification.

Why would a designer fuse two choromosomes that appear in a number of species into a single chromosome in another and forget to remove the end-markers, making it look like a fusion of chromosomes instead of a single long one?

Fisherwoman:

Quote

God fuzed them that way because His ways are not our ways.

Open your heart and stop resisting the truth. There have been too many people hurt by Darwinising. It’s time that kids like me stopped being treated like we’re idiots for trying to minister in class. Have you read about the Cambrian Explosion? How did that create galaxies so quickly? Why was it perfectly smooth? How could that be by chance? In the beginning, nothing exploded! Give me a break, evolution gave us a hurricane (Katrina) shaped like an aborted fetus just by coincidence? We need the truth!

God bless Ben Stein. I pray that Jesus will sustain him through the ordeal he will go through after the movei is released.

Being "moderated" in three, two, one...

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

Absolutely. Music is the new front in the evolution wars. But, don't blame poor old JAD. He didn't start it. It started at the now defunct one-blog-a-day, in what is still one of my favorite moments of the culture war.

Quote

wÒÓ† Says:

Holy cow, this thread’s not dead?

Mr. Davison, would you care to comment on the work of Hammer, M.C. et al?

Some scientists say it’s legit. Too legit to quit, in fact.

Frankly, I doubt you can touch this.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

It’s time that kids like me stopped being treated like we’re idiots for trying to minister in class. Have you read about the Cambrian Explosion? How did that create galaxies so quickly?

that's a troll, I hope?

Unless I'm quite mistaken, that troll shimmies.

Gaaa! They kept it! Oh, crap.

*Ducks*

Yes, a shimmying troll. That was my first and only (and last) attempt at sockpuppetry, folks. It doth maketh me to feel a teensy bit like I needeth a shower. Sorry, Wes. That's most likely not what you meant by "pearls."

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

Jerry claims he was fired because of his anti- Darwinist views at a Spring Arbor University, which is an evangelical Protestant school. He indicates that he was fired due to his doubts about Darwinism even though the President and Vice President of the school were openly creationist, although he does state in his post that he also experienced antagonism from “dogmatic Darwinists” at the previous University he taught at, Bowing Green State University in Ohio. Jerry taught psychology, not any field remotely related to evolution. It seems to me that something is missing from this story. How pi$$ed off could he have gotten the faculty of the biology department for them to have them call for his ouster? How does it serve “big science” to have him expelled?

I think that is sufficiently specific to actually make an identification.

Yeah, that guy has major persecution issues. Check out this account of a presentation by Jerry Bergman at Wichita State University.

Here's a snip:

Quote

During the same conversation I mentioned to Bergman how absolutely insane his CV is (which I posted here, verbatim except for the contact information for Bergman), and I told him I made an Excel spreadsheet of time versus place that goes, at times, as many as 7 columns out (meaning he was working or attending school at 7 different places), and that’s with 3 pages of information that I couldn’t place because he provided no dates for them.

When I brought this up, Bergman again exploded in his persecution claims saying that websites publish things like that to discredit him and so I had to mention, after a bit of a pause, “Actually, I got it from Dave [Lehman].”

And so, I asked Lehman, “Dave, what are you doing to Bergman? Why are you persecuting Bergman?”

I was wondering why his CV was so bloated. Personally, I think one or perhaps three advanced degrees is enough, but I'm happy for people who want to keep getting degrees forever and/or lying about some of them.

--------------"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Here's how "Expelled" intends to pack theaters with kids who can't say "no" to the oppressive system controlling them. Some excerpts:

Quote

Q: What’s the best way to get our school families to come out to the movies?

A: In speaking with Christian Schools, we’ve found that hosting a school-wide “mandatory” field trip is the best way to maximize your school’s earning potential. Send a field trip home with your middle school and high school students, have each child pay for their own ticket, then collect the stubs at the door once you get to the movie theater. With this model, you also will be able to benefit from the ticket stubs purchased by parents who choose to come as well.

Ah, yes, the freedom fighters want to force as many kids as they can to be a captive audience.

Quote

Q: Do we have to go to the movie on a particular day to be a part of the fundraising program?

A: Not at all. HOWEVER, it is important for a movie to have a stellar showing at the box office on opening weekend. Therefore, we will only be able to accept stubs submitted within two (2) weeks of the movie releasing in your area.

Oh yeah, it's all about the freedom. It's a damn good thing they're not as manipulative as the materialistic-atheist-evolutionist conspiracy.

Quote

Q: Will someone from our administration be able to screen the entire movie prior to the movie’s release?

A: There will be opportunities for screenings in certain markets across the country, but not in every market. Please email us at expelledchallenge@groundforcenetwork.com if you’re interested in being a part of a pre-release screening, and we’ll let you know of the availabilities in your area.

Actually, some of us should see if we could get into some of these screenings, though somehow I doubt they're going to be nearly as open as those put out by the vast evolutionary conspiracy (well, we can be, since we control everything).

And, as you see below, it's really all about the freedom to do science:

Quote

Q: Who has endorsed the movie?

A: Ken Smitherman, President, Association of Christian Schools International: Ben Stein has done an outstanding job of pulling together a cross section of interviews that point out the blatant discrimination against many in the scientific community who would embrace “intelligent design” or even more specific aspects of the reality of God… We highly recommend the movie to anybody. It is not only informative and challenging—it is fun to watch.

Michael Medved, nationally syndicated radio host: This is an enormously important project and I am so proud of the fact that Ben Stein, who is a national treasure, is part of it. People know that there is a dictatorial impulse at work in the land to shut down even the most elementary questioning of this unquestionable belief in random evolution and the American people don’t like being told by their ‘betters’ what they are supposed to believe.

Dr J.I. Packer, theologian: Propaganda molds minds in a very direct way and that is the logjam in this situation, which the Ben Stein movie, by being entertaining, seeks to break through. I wish it well – I hope under God it will have a great effect just at that point.

Peter Furler, lead singer, The Newsboys: Something we all need to ask ourselves in life is “What am I here for?” You know, if we are just “lucky mud” then these questions don’t mean much at all. But there is a God and he did create us. So if the Ben Stein movie is asking these questions, and if somebody is keeping us from finding out the great answers to the great questions - then maybe they are more than just questions. Maybe they are questions with eternal consequences.

Luis Palau, President, Luis Palau Association: It's no surprise to those of us trying to communicate the Good News that God is now excluded from most scientific discourse on campuses and in the media. We are seeing the consequences of locking matters of faith out of our classrooms. We applaud Ben Stein for casting light on today's challenges to academic freedom.

are you fekking kidding me? FIVE masters degrees and TWO PhD's? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. lately. OK not really. But Why? Jesus.

Well, to be fair, there is a pro-evolutionary theory attorney with a science background commenting on blogs and claiming something similar (at least three Bachelors and a few Masters) for himself, too. (This is the one who started a blog about moi.) He's rather belligerent and usually that's his parting shot when someone has displeased him (like me). We're not completely without a**hole snobs on our side.

But yes, my response was like yours - big whoopie, get a life. Okay, so I had my Bohemian existence then settled down for a Masters while he was earning three degrees in three years. Never try to impress a wolf with how many hoops a dog can jump through!

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ben Stein's knobby knees. Sheesh. Isn't it bad enough, Prince Charles running around in a kilt (although to be fair, his knees distract from the ears), without Stein infantilizing himself? I'd like to see him doing the pogo-dance in a megachurch.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ben Stein's knobby knees. Sheesh. Isn't it bad enough, Prince Charles running around in a kilt (although to be fair, his knees distract from the ears), without Stein infantilizing himself? I'd like to see him doing the pogo-dance in a megachurch.

My oldest brother is conservative to the point that he writes letters to editor proclaiming Reagan's virtues as president, but he has enough sense to realize that the ID horse ain't never gonna run. "We shouldn't even be having this discussion" is his take on it.

I told him about the Expelled site and when he saw that picture of Ben Stein, he almost cried.

I have not been able to get back to the sites that I linked at Expelled. Since I fear that they may be reacting to exposure, I went to Google's Cache to copy what was at www.getexpelled.com/schools.php to here. Here's the text of that whole page:

Quote

Welcome to theExpelled Challenge web site

where we can help Christian schools raise up to $10,000 while educating their students, parents, and staff of the controversy that is surrounding the Intelligent Design and evolution debate. This is an extremely important project for those of us who believe our world was designed by a creator and not an act of random chance.

What is the Expelled Challenge?To engage Christian schools to get as many students, parents, and faculty from your school out to see Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (opening in theaters April 2008).

Here are some suggestions as to how to do that: Organize a school field trip and invite parents to attend as well. Offer extra credit to your students to go on their own time. What is the reward?Generous donations can be awarded to schools according to the number of movie ticket stubs they turn in. By accepting this challenge, your school could be awarded a donation up to $10,000, just for bringing your kids to see this film!

Your school will be awarded a donation based upon the number of ticket stubs you turn in (see submission instructions in FAQ section). That structure is as follows:

Each school across the nation will be competing for the top honor of submitting the most ticket stubs with that school having their $5,000 donation matched for a total donation of $10,000!

Please click on the link at the bottom of this page to register your school to take the Expelled Challenge and tell us how many ticket stubs you think your school will submit. Registering is very important as only schools who register will be eligible for donated funds. Also, funds are limited and will be given in the order in which the schools are registered. Deadline for registering is March 28, 2008.

Contact Us|Privacy Policy|Terms of Use EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed and the EXPELLED titles, logos and images are trademarks of Premise Media Corporation and are used with permission. The views expressed herein do not represent those of the Premise Media Corportation or the filmmakers, but are rather the views of various organizations who have created these resources.

Q: What’s the best way to get our school families to come out to the movies?

A: In speaking with Christian Schools, we’ve found that hosting a school-wide “mandatory” field trip is the best way to maximize your school’s earning potential. Send a field trip home with your middle school and high school students, have each child pay for their own ticket, then collect the stubs at the door once you get to the movie theater. With this model, you also will be able to benefit from the ticket stubs purchased by parents who choose to come as well.

Q: What if we don’t want to coordinate an organized school field trip? Can we still participate in the fundraising aspects of the program?

A: Absolutely! You can simply ask your school families to bring back the ticket stubs (similar to the way the General Mills “Box Tops for Education” program works). You can then turn those ticket stubs into Ground Force Network, PO Box 1055, Rockwall, TX 75087 and your school will receive credit for the number of ticket stubs you turn in!

Q: Do we have to go to the movie on a particular day to be a part of the fundraising program?

A: Not at all. HOWEVER, it is important for a movie to have a stellar showing at the box office on opening weekend. Therefore, we will only be able to accept stubs submitted within two (2) weeks of the movie releasing in your area.

A: You can. But it’s not necessary. A simple phone call to your local theater will be all that you need to do. Tell them that you want to bring a group of students on a particular day and they will likely arrange a special showing of the movie just for your group.

Q: Will someone from our administration be able to screen the entire movie prior to the movie’s release?

A: There will be opportunities for screenings in certain markets across the country, but not in every market. Please email us at expelledchallenge@groundforcenetwork.com if you’re interested in being a part of a pre-release screening, and we’ll let you know of the availabilities in your area.

A: Ken Smitherman, President, Association of Christian Schools International: Ben Stein has done an outstanding job of pulling together a cross section of interviews that point out the blatant discrimination against many in the scientific community who would embrace “intelligent design” or even more specific aspects of the reality of God… We highly recommend the movie to anybody. It is not only informative and challenging—it is fun to watch.

Michael Medved, nationally syndicated radio host: This is an enormously important project and I am so proud of the fact that Ben Stein, who is a national treasure, is part of it. People know that there is a dictatorial impulse at work in the land to shut down even the most elementary questioning of this unquestionable belief in random evolution and the American people don’t like being told by their ‘betters’ what they are supposed to believe.

Dr J.I. Packer, theologian: Propaganda molds minds in a very direct way and that is the logjam in this situation, which the Ben Stein movie, by being entertaining, seeks to break through. I wish it well – I hope under God it will have a great effect just at that point.

Peter Furler, lead singer, The Newsboys: Something we all need to ask ourselves in life is “What am I here for?” You know, if we are just “lucky mud” then these questions don’t mean much at all. But there is a God and he did create us. So if the Ben Stein movie is asking these questions, and if somebody is keeping us from finding out the great answers to the great questions - then maybe they are more than just questions. Maybe they are questions with eternal consequences.

Luis Palau, President, Luis Palau Association: It's no surprise to those of us trying to communicate the Good News that God is now excluded from most scientific discourse on campuses and in the media. We are seeing the consequences of locking matters of faith out of our classrooms. We applaud Ben Stein for casting light on today's challenges to academic freedom.

A: Send the ticket stubs you’ve collected, along with the name of your school, to the following address: Ground Force Network, PO Box 1055, Rockwall, TX 75087. Ticket stubs need to be submitted within 2 weeks of the movie release date in your area.

A: Being that this film is viewed as history changing, funds have been provided by the Faith and Arts Community Endeavor project, specifically for Christian schools, organizations, and groups to encourage them to see the film and engage these Important issues.

Q: Will all schools who submit their ticket stubs be given a donation?

A: The goal of the project is to help Christian groups be able to see the film. Funds for the Expelled Challenge will only be distributed to those who register through the Expelled Challenge website you were just on and on a first come, first served basis in the order in which they were registered. Bottom line, funds are limited – register as soon as you can!

Q: Is there a minimum number of ticket stubs required to be eligible for a donation?

A: Absolutely not! Obviously, the more stubs you submit, the more of a donation you can receive, but any number of stubs can be submitted and funds will be donated based upon the tiered structure provided on the Expelled Challenge website.

Contact Us|Privacy Policy|Terms of Use EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed and the EXPELLED titles, logos and images are trademarks of Premise Media Corporation and are used with permission. The views expressed herein do not represent those of the Premise Media Corportation or the filmmakers, but are rather the views of various organizations who have created these resources.

That seems like an unexpected admission. It reminds me of something I saw on a bulletin board at my university: "Attention Students: Revised History Schedule." You have to admire the honesty.

(Sorry if someone else already pointed that out.)

--------------Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris